2026 Election: Minnesota House District 53A

Become a member to support local election coverage.

We talked with Mary Frances Clardy and AJ Gubash, the two candidates running for Minnesota House District 53A. Our candidate questionnaire covers priorities, local funding, fraud, housing, and more.

• More: See our full voter’s guide for information on other local races.

Race profile: Minnesota representatives are elected to a two-year term. District 53A represents the southern half of West St. Paul, most of Inver Grove Heights, Sunfish Lake, Lilydale, and part of Mendota Heights.

Who’s running:

• Mary Frances Clardy – DFL – Incumbent first elected in 2022, Clardy is a retired teacher.
• AJ Gubash – GOP – Litigation paralegal at a nonprofit law firm.

Candidate Questions

We asked the candidates a series of six questions and asked them to respond in 250 words or less. The questions cover priorities, local funding, fraud, housing, immigration, and transparency around Flock cameras.

Priorities: What are your two to three top priorities as a statesenator/representative and how will you address those issues and actually accomplish something?

Mary Frances Clardy: Ensuring strong schools directly correlates with having a strong community. Therefore I support fully funding our schools to ensure all children can have quality education opportunities regardless of family’s income or zip code. To achieve this the per pupil funding formula must be reevaluated. I will draft legislation that addresses equitable funding. For example I will address the Special education cross-subsidy shortage which arises because Minnesota receives only 10 to 15% from federal funding and needs to supplement the rest. 

I am also committed to ensuring that quality and affordable childcare is more accessible. To that end, I will author or co author bills that increase access to Pre-K programs and community base centers. 

I will continue to champion legislation that expands access to mental health services. In my first term I obtained  funding for the West Saint Paul’s Crisis and Recovery Center. During this legislative interim I have also been working on providing supportive services for those experiencing domestic abuse and homelessness. 

AJ Gubash: My top priorities are lowering Minnesota’s tax burden through responsible spending, empowering free enterprise, and restoring government to its proper role while demanding accountability for every taxpayer dollar.

Minnesotans are taxed too heavily because government spends too much. I want to reduce unnecessary spending, remove barriers to free enterprise, and allow individuals and businesses to keep more of what they earn. Economic prosperity comes from Minnesotans creating, working, investing, and building, not from an ever-expanding state government.

Limited government does not mean weak government. State government has fundamental responsibilities: maintaining law and order, protecting people and property, administering justice, and safeguarding the public treasury.

That requires much greater diligence over where taxpayer money goes. Fraud doesn’t only steal from taxpayers; it steals from the vulnerable; it undermines programs that many Minnesotans legitimately depend upon. Our government should prioritize Minnesotans over bad actors who come here intending to exploit our system, defraud public programs, or funnel taxpayer dollars elsewhere.

Minnesota government has a duty to put Minnesotans first. I will work to strengthen oversight, aggressively pursue fraud, eliminate waste, restrain spending, and ensure government fulfills its essential responsibilities before asking Minnesotans for another dollar.

Local funding: Education funding continues to fall short, and more burdens are being shifted to local counties. What, if anything, will you do to address these local funding gaps and unfunded mandates

AJ Gubash: Before asking taxpayers for additional education funding, we need to confront why our schools are failing to produce the results parents and taxpayers should expect. More money alone will not solve problems that are fundamentally about priorities, standards, accountability, and parental authority.

We should be asking why schools are placing tampons in boys’ bathrooms or introducing controversial gender ideology while academic proficiency remains a serious concern. Schools should never undermine parents by concealing important information about their children. We also need firm academic and behavioral standards rather than continually lowering expectations when students fail to meet them.

I support expanding school choice and giving parents greater control over where their children are educated. Competition creates accountability: schools should have to demonstrate to families that they provide a safe environment and a quality education.

Finally, the Legislature should stop imposing requirements on school districts and local governments without honestly accounting for their cost. If the state mandates something, legislators should identify how it will be paid for rather than simply passing the bill to local taxpayers.

Our schools certainly require resources, but accountability must accompany funding. We should fix what isn’t working rather than assuming another appropriation will fix it.

Mary Frances Clardy: Our shortage of public education funding is a national crisis, and it leaves local counties and cities to have to make up the difference or leave student needs unmet (e.g. for Special Education or English Language Learning).

1. We need to vote yes, November 3rd to the constitutional amendment to modernize the distribution of the State’s Permanent School fund. This act alone will cost us nothing,yet will provide access to new funding.
2. I will also vote to support our local school districts as they request a passed levy this will support them as they continue to keep highly qualified staff , class sizes reasonable and schools safe.
3. I will support dedicated revenue streams.
4. I will vote to allow flexibility in managing some dedicated funding streams by school districts.

Fraud: With overwhelming bipartisan support, last session the legislature created an Office of the Inspector General to combat fraud. Is there more the state should be doing to stop fraud?

Mary Frances Clardy: We will need to support legislative initiatives which are suggested by the newly formed Office of the Inspector General based on their findings concerning initiatives which can be taken to reduce incidences of fraud in the future. Fraud is a huge concern for all Minnesotans, and we need to resist efforts to make it a partisan issue. None of us legislators, Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, want state money to be misused or wasted. We are intentional about where we allot state money, and we want to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose and yields positive results for Minnesotans. To achieve this goal we must work together in a bipartisan basis to strengthen safeguards.

AJ Gubash: I support efforts to investigate and prosecute fraud, and an independent Inspector General may provide a more effective means of doing so because the IG does not simply serve at the pleasure of the governor. But let’s be clear: creating another government office does not absolve the government officials who allowed this disaster to happen.

The Inspector General is still appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. Many of the same people now celebrating the creation of a new watchdog presided over a government in which enormous amounts of taxpayer money were allowed to disappear through fraud. They should not get to claim victory for bringing a fire extinguisher to a fire they allowed to burn.

Protecting the public treasury is one of government’s most basic obligations. Legislators should be asking hard questions before taxpayer money is stolen, scrutinizing organizations receiving public funds, demanding accountability from agencies, and stopping payments when the warning signs appear.

This is becoming government’s answer to every failure: create another office, add another bureaucracy, spend more money, and declare the problem solved. It isn’t. If anything, it is a snowball effect.

Minnesota doesn’t principally suffer from a shortage of government offices. It suffers from a shortage of elected officials willing to accept responsibility for governing. We need lawmakers who understand that protecting taxpayer money is their responsibility, not expanding government after the public discovers their failure.

We need better government, not more government.

Housing: In the last several sessions, various proposals have sought housing reform with the goal of increasing affordable housing with measures that often take away local control. What, if any, housing measures will you support?

AJ Gubash: I favor limited government first and local government over centralized state control second. But neither level of government should unnecessarily interfere with private property rights or prevent the market from responding to housing demand.

I don’t believe government can subsidize its way out of high housing costs. I’d rather make it easier and less expensive for the private sector to build. Whenever government unnecessarily hinders voluntary activity between buyers, sellers, builders, and property owners, it restricts the market’s ability to respond to what people actually want and need.

Builders face regulatory obstacles at both the state and local levels. We should examine unnecessary permitting delays, fees, restrictions, and other regulatory barriers that make new housing more difficult or expensive to build. Those costs don’t simply disappear; they can make projects economically unworkable, constrain housing supply, and ultimately contribute to higher costs for Minnesotans.

Free enterprise has been one of history’s greatest engines of prosperity and human flourishing. Rather than assuming another government program will make housing affordable, government should first look at what government itself is doing to make housing more expensive.

When government action is genuinely necessary, I favor decisions being made at the local level, but local control should not become an excuse for unnecessary interference with property rights or development.

Mary Frances Clardy: I am constantly in contact with all our Mayors to let them know what housing proposals are being discussed. It is important to me that cities can have as much input in decisions that affect their jurisdiction, particularly since our district is one of the most diverse districts in terms of needs in the metro area. There are three proposals that I would support which address various needs across my district

1. Ban private equity firms from buying up excessive amounts of homes in our state, which has artificially inflated housing prices and pushed people out of their homes.
2. Pass the Starter Home Act To jump start construction of more homes of every kind and in the places where people want to live, creating more housing choices for families
3. stop algorithmic price fixing schemes that large landlords use to illegally increase rents.
4. However, It should be noted that cities less than 1000 have been traditionally excluded from state housing mandates (eg. Sunfish Lake and Lilydale). 

Immigration: Minnesota saw significant impacts from the increased Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations earlier this year, including closed businesses, students missing school, protests, and law enforcement conflicts. What was your reaction and what changes, if any, should the legislature implement to address future conflicts?

Mary Frances Clardy: Operation Metro Surge was hugely harmful for our communities, both in terms of trauma inflicted on residents and economic consequences of ICE’s presence on businesses and working families. I would like to see the state legislature pass policies like some cities enacted during the surge which limit the ability of federal agents to terrorize our communities with impunity. One such policy is requiring that all law enforcement professionals have a clearly visible badge and badge number so that they can be identified, and another policy is requiring law enforcement professionals NOT to obscure their faces with face coverings while performing their duties except in a few limited exceptions like an undercover operation.

AJ Gubash: Immigration is central to the American story. From the earliest settlers seeking religious liberty to the generations of immigrants who followed, immigrants have helped build the most prosperous nation in human history. We are overwhelmingly a nation of descendants of immigrants, and their contributions have produced the extraordinary advancements and opportunities Americans enjoy today.

Continued American prosperity depends upon a strong and effective immigration system that serves the general interest of our country. That includes legal pathways for people to come here to work and contribute. Work visas and permits should be renewable for guests who are contributing to society and abiding by our laws. Our naturalization system can always be improved, but the process must nevertheless be respected.

Allowing immigration laws to be systematically violated with impunity threatens our sovereignty, public safety, economy, and confidence in the justice system overall. In the interest of public safety, Minnesota officials should cooperate with lawful federal immigration enforcement and empower state and local authorities to do the same, not encourage obstruction and unrest. Effective partnerships between law enforcement agencies make our communities safer.

The rule of law applies equally to the government. Reports and allegations of unconstitutional conduct by federal officers, including potential Fourth Amendment violations, should be taken seriously. Enforcement and constitutional rights are not competing principles; the government has an obligation to uphold both. We can enforce our immigration laws while demanding that every government entity (state, local, or federal) remain uncompromisingly within the constitutional limits of their authority.

Transparency: Data privacy is an increasingly important issue with concerns about Flock cameras and sharing data with the federal government. Do you support the continued use of Flock cameras in Minnesota? Why or why not?

AJ Gubash: I support law enforcement having effective tools to locate dangerous criminals, fugitives, and missing persons. Flock cameras have demonstrated significant value for these purposes, but with a powerful surveillance tool comes an equally significant responsibility to protect the privacy and constitutional rights of Minnesotans.

Data unrelated to an investigation should be automatically destroyed after a reasonable period, such as 30 days. That provides investigators sufficient time to identify and preserve crucial information without creating a permanent database of Minnesotans’ movements.

This level of government surveillance should be reserved for circumstances where significant public-safety interests justify the intrusion: protecting life, locating dangerous individuals, and investigating serious crimes. Flock should help investigate known threats to life and public safety, not be used as a proactive enforcement mechanism.

Flock cameras should remain under local jurisdictional control. State or federal agencies seeking access to specific data should first obtain permission from the local authority responsible for it. If permission is denied, they should be required to obtain appropriate legal process, including a warrant when required.

Flock cameras can save lives and locate known threats very effectively, which is why I don’t wholly oppose their use. But they can also intrude upon individual liberty and privacy. With strong oversight, strict limits, and transparency, they can increase public safety while protecting individual rights. Abuse of this data should carry serious consequences for those responsible and for any agency that permitted or failed to prevent it.

Mary Frances Clardy: I am opposed to the use of Flock cameras in Minnesota. I am proud that West St. Paul said NO to them being used. In a time when the Department of Justice is bringing lawsuits against peaceful activists for trying to protect their neighbors, we do not need to give the federal government any more access to our data than they already have. Surveillance is a feature of authoritarian governments, and our goal is to move farther away from that type of governance, not closer to it.

Lightning Round

We asked candidates a series of 10 simple questions and asked them to respond briefly in 25 words or less.

1. Do you have a library card? When did you last use it?

• Mary Frances Clardy: Yes, last week
• AJ Gubash: No library card, but I am a Barnes & Noble member. My latest purchase was William Bradford’s Of Plymouth Plantation. Good books deserve permanent residence.

2. Do you support restrictions on data centers?

• AJ Gubash: I’m hesitant about government restricting private industry, but research suggests data centers drain community resources. Like other industries, they must demonstrate safety before further development.
• Mary Frances Clardy: Yes – I want to learn more about how to balance environmental concerns with union job creation

3. Have you volunteered in your community in the past year? Where?

• Mary Frances Clardy: Yes, Loaves  and Fishes,  Special Olympics, National Guard//Yellow ribbon, Two Rivers MLK Day celebration AAPID at Maxfield school, ROCC back to school Drive.
• AJ Gubash: In Washington, D.C., I volunteered my time advocating with Veterans’ Affairs Committee staff for issues affecting veterans in Minnesota.

4. Do you support legalizing sports betting?

• AJ Gubash: Yes—individual freedom. However, who are the profiteers here? HF 4204’s 22% sports gambling tax gives state government a financial interest in this activity.
• Mary Frances Clardy: Yes

5. Have you attended community events in a non-campaign capacity in the past year? Which ones?

• Mary Frances Clardy: Yes. Music in The Park, West St. Paul Community clean up, West St. Paul Clean up couple of Bridge Brigade
• AJ Gubash: Before my campaign, I attended local city council meetings, including speaking in favor of Minnesota’s historic state flag.

6. Do you support the new state flag?

• AJ Gubash: No. That decision was improperly delegated to an appointed commission rather than the Legislature, which represents Minnesotans. The people never chose to change the flag.
• Mary Frances Clardy: Yes

7. What’s your favorite local park?

• Mary Frances Clardy: Thompson Park
• AJ Gubash: Groveland Park, bordering WSP and IGH. I grew up there, learned to skate there, made countless memories there, and still enjoy it today.

8. Do you support partisan gerrymandering?

• AJ Gubash: No. Voters should choose their representatives, not representatives their voters. Manipulating district lines to maintain political power is despotism.
• Mary Frances Clardy: No

9. Who is someone that inspires you?

• Mary Frances Clardy: Rosa Parks because she was a trained activist whose actions were intentional, strategic, and courageous
• AJ Gubash: My father: a 30-year West St. Paul police officer. By his example, he laid my foundation in faith, righteousness, integrity, and service.

10. Do you support mail-in and early voting and same-day voter registration?

• AJ Gubash: Yes, provided every ballot is subject to reliable verification of eligibility. No voting method should be exempt from strict election-integrity safeguards.
• Mary Frances Clardy: Yes!

More Information

• Ballotpedia: Gubash
• East Metro Voter Guide
• Town Square Television Candidate Forum

See our full local voter’s guide for information on more races and candidates.

Local election coverage happens thanks to our members. Join now to support local news.